Lower body mass index and higher height are correlated with increased varicocele risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the anthropometric indexes in subjects with varicocele compared to controls and the incidence of varicocele in different body mass index (BMI) groups for the purpose of exploring the association between varicocele and anthropometric indexes. A comprehensive literature search was conducted by using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE databases and Cochrane Library up to February 2019. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by STATA, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was utilised for assessing risk of bias. Ultimately, 13 articles containing seven case-control studies and six cross-sectional studies with 1,385,630 subjects were involved in our study. Pooled results demonstrated that varicocele patients had a lower BMI (WMD = -0.77, 95% CI = -1.03 to -0.51) and a higher height than nonvaricocele participants, especially in grade 3 varicocele patients. Subgroup analyses showed that normal BMI individuals had a higher risk of varicocele than obese or overweight individuals and a lower risk than underweight individuals. In conclusion, this study indicates that varicocele patients have a lower BMI and a higher height than nonvaricocele participants. Moreover, men with excess bodyweight have a lower incidence of varicocele compared to normal weight or underweight people. That is to say, high BMI and adiposity protect against varicocele and high BMI is associated with a decreased risk of varicocele.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".